Is Social Media worth it for artists?

Speaking as a creator myself, I have come to the conclusion that it really all has come full circle to us having to do things the old-fashioned way. We have gotten used to using social media for instant promotion and instant gratification for our work that we have forgotten about how difficult it was and how long it took for artists to be appreciated beforehand.  

Think about famous artists from centuries ago? While they were alive, they were not appreciated for the most part. Today, they are greatly appreciated and called geniuses. That happens in many creative genres actually. Music, movies, TV shows, operas, soap operas, cartoons, comics, anime, manga, etc.  

Someone who is determined can find a way to make anything work for themselves, so, I would never say you should "abandon" social media. However, I do think people need to understand what social media truly is as a means of control. It's not there for YOUR benefit. It's there for someone else's benefit and they are using YOU for that benefit.  

There are a lot of dilapidated people out there that got fat eating off social media when it was doing what they "claim" it does now that look down upon others that don't have the large following that they have. If you gained hundreds of thousands of subs to your Instagram, YouTube, Twitch, Twitter, Facebook, or any other major social media platform 10 years ago or so when IMO social media was at its peak of usefulness, of course you are going to have a different perspective because you already have a huge following, and it was pretty easy to get one, at that time.   

Even with the algorithm garbage of today, the pool is deep enough if you have a huge following already to where you have enough people that will keep coming back regardless of the frequency of your content, and organic growth is not as much of an issue. HOWEVER..... .....if you are someone that has a small following, or are someone just starting out, and the social media platform is only allowing less than 5% of people who follow you to see your content, and probably less than 1% organically, you cannot grow a brand that way. It's not about the "quality" of your work. It's not about the "quantity" of your work. It's all about whether you are willing to sell out to that platform, to push whatever agendas they want to be pushed.  

PERIOD, POINT BLANK.   

It's that simple. 

If you are posting content that is divisive and inflammatory, content that is decadent with self-absorption e.g. people pushing materialistic lives to the max showing themselves shopping all the time buying expensive clothes, eating high-priced food, traveling to expensive vacation resorts, etc., posting absolute foolishness and goofiness with people sticking forks in light sockets, or trying to parachute off the top of their house with a bath towel, or anything that at its core is 100% useless, then you get a surprisingly consistent amount of traffic.  

If you are posting content that is inclusive to EVERYBODY and welcoming, content that is helping others by teaching or giving tips to improve various aspects of life, content that is designed to just have fun with cool stuff whether it be art, music, movies, TV shows, toys, hobbies, video games, comics, manga, anime, etc., that EVERYONE can relate to and enjoy, and just enjoy posting positive content that in general is useful and uplifting to people, unsurprisingly it is extremely difficult to get a consistent amount of traffic or even get people that follow you anyway to see your content.  

What a coin-ci-dink. 

So, we are going to have to go back to doing things the old school way. Pounding that pavement to push our brands. Going out to meet people at as many events as we can go to. Funnel people to our own personal websites, chat rooms, Discord servers, etc. where WE can control engagement and use social media to our advantage as just a tool in our toolbox in our cars rather than THE car we drive every day.

More Bounce To The "Ounce?"

I see a lot of chatter online about the RUMORS of what the code-name of Nintendo's next console is, or what the code-name means, or speculation on what names Nintendo is using to describe the device with close partners such as Sega and Atlus referring to it as "Switch 2" or "New Switch." Some people are taking that literally as proof that it will be called one of those two things.   For starters, those are general-terms used in casual conversation between partners. You know it's going to be another hybrid-console, so regardless on what the code-name is or what the final retail name will be, calling it "Switch 2" or "New Switch" is just an easy way to discuss it to not confuse it with the current Switch. It's not that serious folks. Now, onto the serious stuff. The code-names for Nintendo consoles almost always reflect one of two things. 1. The form-factor and functionality of the device. or... 2. The name of the chips used in the device. For example. The code-name for the Switch was "Project NX." What does that stand for? Nintendo "Cross." The X refers to a "cross" and this is describing the fact that the console would be a "cross" between a home console and portable console, just like the late former President of Nintendo of Japan Saturo Iwata said it would be way back in 2014. The code-name of the Wii U was "Project Cafe." What does that stand for? The CPU in the Wii U was called "Expresso," and the GPU was called "Latte." Two drinks commonly served in a cafe' environment. The code-name for the Wii was "Nintendo Revolution." What does that stand for? The Wii-Mote was a "revolutionary" device by Nintendo to incorporate motion-controls into gaming. It wasn't AS revolutionary as Nintendo planned for it to be, but motion-control while greatly subdued, still exists to today with Nintendo, Sony, and even some PC-hybrid manufacturers. The code-name for the GameCube was "Project Dolphin." What does that stand for? This one is a little tricky, but bare with me. The name of the CPU was "Gekko." Now, a gekko is a small, cute reptile commonly seen in insurance commercials. What does that have to do with dolphins? Well, the word "gekko" sounds a lot like "Ecco" which was the name of a popular video-game for the Sega Genesis featuring, a dolphin. Obviously, for copyright purposes Nintendo could not use that name outright, but since it was a code-name, everyone knew what "Gekko" meant. The reason why I can take this leap is because of the name of the GPU which was "Flipper." That was the name of a famous TV show from the 1960s that once again featured, a dolphin. Even though that was the actual name of the dolphin in the show, the term "flipper" is not something you can easily copyright because many creatures have flippers. Plus, they could be just referencing the flipper of a dolphin and not the actual animal from the 1960s TV show. The code-name of the N64 was "Project Reality." What does that stand for? Well, this one is a little loose as well. You obviously are going from the 2D sprite world (for the most part) and into a 3D world with graphics that are more "realistic." You also have the N64 hardware based on the powerful Silicon Graphics computers that were used to produce bleeding-edge visual FX in motion-pictures like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park.   So, in regards to the rumored code-name of the next console being "ounce" or "OZ," I have no idea. If history follows as it has been established, the code-name will refer to the chip-set in the device rather than the functionality or form factor. "Ounce" could be the name of the APU in the device. With this being a heavily-customized variant of the T239 chip, I think the most logical explanation is that even though it won't be in the same class in terms of raw horsepower as the PS5 and XSX, it will be something that is more powerful than it probably should be considering the size, and the power disparity won't be an issue in regards to overall performance. It has been mentioned by Doctre81 that it may not be about the word "ounce" but the letters, "OZ." Credit: Doctre81 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfwzNk53SW4 When you see the term "OZ," what is the first thing that comes to mind? The movie The Wizard of Oz. He feels that the code-name could be hinting at the "wizardry" of being able to get high-level performance out of a smaller chip-set. That is very possible, but I would take it a step further. Just who was The "Wizard" of Oz? He was a scientist from Kansas that got swept away in his hot-air balloon to the land of Oz, but once he got there, he used his technological-prowess to create an image of himself that was more grandiose than the reality of who he was. Even though the image he created was not the reality of who he was, in the end he still gave Dorothy and the others what they had been searching for and longing for in ways that they weren't expecting. Even if it was just having enough wisdom to illuminate that the answers that they were searching for were inside of them the whole time. With all the craziness in the gaming industry today, it is VERY reminiscent of the gaming crash of the early 1980s. It was the Famicom that turned things around back then and saved gaming. It may be the next Nintendo console that saves this generation as well. It's not about pushing hardware to the absolute breaking-point at the expense of completely unreasonable and unsustainable project budgets. It's about taking what you already have, and making it the best it can be. The next Nintendo console may be more powerful than expected, but it seems like nVidia MAY......have found a way to give the "illusion" of high-end gameplay without the cost and sacrifice of the "reality" of high-end gameplay. That is, IF the rumors turn out to be fact, and I want to stress that because these rumors while seemingly credibly and reasonable are still highly speculative at this point. The ran-away success of the Nintendo Switch is proof that the experience is what matters most above all.

Switch Next Model

For some reason that escapes me, there are a number of people that claim to be "relieved" that Nintendo of Japan President, Shuntaro Furukawa, made a statement in regards to Nintendo's next console. He said the best way to refer to it is as "Switch Next Model." Now, what that actually means no one knows for sure, but, many people have interpreted it to mean that the next console will just be a more powerful Switch. Maybe, but that's not the point I want to address here. What I want to address is this idea that there was some sort of DANGER that Nintendo was going to do something way out of pocket and abandon the hybrid-concept. Let's look at history. The Nintendo Entertainment System was a success. So, they made the "Super" Nintendo Entertainment System. The GameBoy was a success. So, they made the GameBoy "Color" and subsequent iterations with form-factors all being adaptations of the original concept retaining the GameBoy branding. The Nintendo DS was a success. So, they made the Nintendo "3DS." The Nintendo Wii was a success. So, they made the Nintendo Wii "U." The point is that history has proven that whenever Nintendo had has massively-successful hardware, they don't change much, if at all. They keep everything that the previous console had that worked, and then add something to it. I don't see why people are acting as though Furukawa stating that the next console will be a "Switch Next Model" is some sort of revelation, or that there was a chance Nintendo was going to break from convention and do something completely different. Not only is that not the Nintendo way, but it's not how business is done in general. Look at Sony? The PlayStation was a success. So, they gave us the PlayStation 2. The PlayStation 2 was the best-selling hardware EVER, so, they gave us the PlayStation 3, and so on. However with Microsoft, they gave us the XBOX. That failed, so, they gave us the XBOX 360. That was their most successful console in terms of console sales, but the losses were so big for Microsoft (and Sony BTW,) and the damage to the XBOX brand was so great that they changed again and gave us the XBOX One. That didn't sell well either, so, now we have the XBOX Series S/X. Their branding is completely screwed up, just like their company. There is no sense of continuity between Microsoft's console. Each generation feels like a restart for Microsoft. Consumers feel comfortable investing in a product where the identity is not a mystery. Companies that can identify what their strengths are, and can enhance them with each iteration of their device are usually successful. That is one reason why Apple is successful and why Microsoft is successful in the software space with the Windows brand. I say all that to say that what Furukawa said was a nothing burger if you are actually using your brain. Whenever Nintendo has dropped-the-ball with a console e.g. Virtual Boy, N64, GameCube, Wii U, THAT is when you see a fundamental change in name and form-factor. There was no logical or historical reason for Furukawa to say anything but the next console will be "Switch next model."